Journal article
Clara Juarez Miro
Journalism, vol. 23(4), 2022, pp. 858-874
Journalism, vol. 23(4), 2022, pp. 858-874
Semantic Scholar
DOI
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Miro, C. J. (2022). The comment gap: Affective publics and gatekeeping in The New York Times’ comment sections. Journalism, 23(4), 858–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920933754
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Miro, Clara Juarez. “The Comment Gap: Affective Publics and Gatekeeping in The New York Times’ Comment Sections.” Journalism 23, no. 4 (2022): 858–874.
MLA
Click to copy
Miro, Clara Juarez. “The Comment Gap: Affective Publics and Gatekeeping in The New York Times’ Comment Sections.” Journalism, vol. 23, no. 4, 2022, pp. 858–74, doi:10.1177/1464884920933754.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{clara2022a,
title = {The comment gap: Affective publics and gatekeeping in The New York Times’ comment sections},
year = {2022},
issue = {4},
journal = {Journalism},
pages = {858-874},
volume = {23},
doi = {10.1177/1464884920933754},
author = {Miro, Clara Juarez}
}
Abstract
This study examines journalists’ gatekeeping and audiences’ participation in The New York Times’ (NYT) comment sections. The concepts of affective publics and news gap informed a qualitative content analysis guided by the questions: (1) What are the characteristics of the comments selected for the NYT Picks section? (2) What are the characteristics of the comments selected for the Reader Picks section? (3) What is the overlap between the two types of comment sections depicted in these curated lists? The analysis was conducted on a sample of best comments according to the NYT (563) and its readers (400). Findings reveal that readers and journalists value comment sections differently, only coinciding 17.2% of the time (the comment gap). Both value comment sections as safe spaces for passionate comments. However, while readers reward confrontational, direct, aligned comments, journalists prefer conciliatory, articulate, and diverse ones. Implications for gatekeeping theory and boundary work are discussed.
